Personality Cafe banner
1 - 20 of 158 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
So I'm an a INFJ, and I always score as an INFp or IEI, just as expected since INFp is the socionic counterpart of the INFJ. However, my friend claims to be an ISFP MBTI type and a EIE/ ENFj socionic type. Is this even possible?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,597 Posts
So I'm an a INFJ, and I always score as an INFp or IEI, just as expected since INFp is the socionic counterpart of the INFJ. However, my friend claims to be an ISFP MBTI type and a EIE/ ENFj socionic type. Is this even possible?
Well, your friend can label themselves however they want but the reality is they're mistyped in MBTI, Socionics or both. Going by functions, it should be relatively straightforward to switch between the two systems but if typing by descriptions or tests then there can definitely be some honest confusion.

The type descriptions and conversions are especially bad for the ISPs and ITJs which is why a lot of MBTI ISTPs are SLIs, ISTJs; LSIs, ISFJs; ESIs and ISFPs; SEIs.

For example, I'm an ESFP:SEE(Gamma) while there's a good chance that an ISFP will be ISFP:SEI(Alpha). Isn't that just crazy? :shocked:

Also, a lot of sensors on this forum like to type themselves intuitive so trying to type by conversion can be an extremely messy affair.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
964 Posts
So I'm an a INFJ, and I always score as an INFp or IEI, just as expected since INFp is the socionic counterpart of the INFJ. However, my friend claims to be an ISFP MBTI type and a EIE/ ENFj socionic type. Is this even possible?
It is possible to identify with different functions in MBTI and Socionics. The question one must then ask oneself, is how relevant the type desciptions are.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,072 Posts
Oh we have discussed this here: http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my-personality-type/393490-intj-mbti-lii-intj-socionics.html

I am convinced the conversion is a myth, especially for us INFP-INFj and vice a versa. Well it is indicated that the conversion works for a slight greater population but not the rest. Please also find the post where it links an article about theories on conversion and there is far greater good argument to believe it doesn't exist.

So no it is not crazy, the functions are handled and defined differently. Please refer to the post but say Ni is handled as imagery and creative mind producing mental worlds and such. Which is very ambiguous and applies to both INFPs and INFJs.

Anyhow ISFP MBTI EIE/ ENFj however sounds like a very long shot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,509 Posts
So I'm an a INFJ, and I always score as an INFp or IEI, just as expected since INFp is the socionic counterpart of the INFJ. However, my friend claims to be an ISFP MBTI type and a EIE/ ENFj socionic type. Is this even possible?
Well, seeing how big that type discrepancy is, I'd say no. If it was something like ISFP and SEI, or ISFP and SEE or something like that, then sure, because those types share at least something in common with each other and can at least somewhat resemble each other in various ways. ISFP and EIE is just... extremely contrary though.

Oh we have discussed this here: http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my-personality-type/393490-intj-mbti-lii-intj-socionics.html

I am convinced the conversion is a myth, especially for us INFP-INFj and vice a versa. Well it is indicated that the conversion works for a slight greater population but not the rest. Please also find the post where it links an article about theories on conversion and there is far greater good argument to believe it doesn't exist.

So no it is not crazy, the functions are handled and defined differently. Please refer to the post but say Ni is handled as imagery and creative mind producing mental worlds and such. Which is very ambiguous and applies to both INFPs and INFJs.

Anyhow ISFP MBTI EIE/ ENFj however sounds like a very long shot.
Depends on the basis on what you type on, no? Whether it's a myth or not. If the functions are the absolute basis of type, then it should be the same or something is very fucked up somewhere.

Fyi, there's a sticky thread about this subject already, where famous socionist Viktor Gulenko wrote an article as old as in the mid-90s about how he thinks the types should actually equally correspond.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,072 Posts
@Entropic But check how Ni is defined in socionics (INFp socionics)


1st function: Ni

IEIs typically have richly developed mental landscapes. They are highly attuned to trends, patterns, and conceptual connections of past behaviors, experiences, relationships, and their role in the world. They are often highly reflective and imaginative, and the fantastic tendencies of IEIs are often vivid and complex. Many IEIs find an inner calling to express their unique perspectives, and often find ways to make use of a myriad of expressive forms, sometimes including poetry, novels, storytelling, photography, or other media.

They can come across as fickle, indecisive and vapid, and their fantasies can be often esoteric; they often may seem idealistic and focused on unrealistic or other-worldly utopias. They also can demonstrate a lack of attentiveness to daily affairs, and sometimes a generally withdrawn, inactive deportment. At the same time, they sometimes can be prophetic, prescient, and profound in their visions, and sometimes reflect a far more rebellious, aggressive, or outspoken demeanor.

In your opinion, without the labels, which MBTI function or personality is described here?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,509 Posts
@Entropic But check how Ni is defined in socionics (INFp socionics)


1st function: Ni

IEIs typically have richly developed mental landscapes. They are highly attuned to trends, patterns, and conceptual connections of past behaviors, experiences, relationships, and their role in the world. They are often highly reflective and imaginative, and the fantastic tendencies of IEIs are often vivid and complex. Many IEIs find an inner calling to express their unique perspectives, and often find ways to make use of a myriad of expressive forms, sometimes including poetry, novels, storytelling, photography, or other media.
Very little of this actually touches on Ni as an actual cognitive outlook, though.

They can come across as fickle, indecisive and vapid, and their fantasies can be often esoteric; they often may seem idealistic and focused on unrealistic or other-worldly utopias. They also can demonstrate a lack of attentiveness to daily affairs, and sometimes a generally withdrawn, inactive deportment. At the same time, they sometimes can be prophetic, prescient, and profound in their visions, and sometimes reflect a far more rebellious, aggressive, or outspoken demeanor.

In your opinion, without the labels, which MBTI function or personality is described here?[
Lots of behavior here, not touching on actual cognition much. I don't type based off descriptions and behavior; I type based on the functions I see present in people's psyches.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,072 Posts
But this is how they describe the first -function- of an INFp - Ni in the socionics website. It is not a profile description. So apparently, how the function itself is handled or imagined to be is different than how briggs myers did and that changes the whole game.

Very little of this actually touches on Ni as an actual cognitive outlook, though.



Lots of behavior here, not touching on actual cognition much. I don't type based off descriptions and behavior; I type based on the functions I see present in people's psyches.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,438 Posts
You'll find a lot of controversy on this issue in this forum. Many argue staunchly that MBTI and Socionics are partly or completely separate from one another and that it is possible to be one type in the former system and a different type in the latter. That argument typically relies on the fact that popular function descriptions as well as type descriptions can differ wildly between systems.

The opposing viewpoint, which I take, is that the core elements of both MBTI and Socionics are the same, and hence the types that result should correspond exactly. While it's true that the Western Jungian tradition and the Russian Socionics tradition have deviated slightly in their analysis and approach to typology, ultimately they arise from the same observed patterns and fundamental axioms. There is a key difference at this basis, however, which is that in MBTI, functions are viewed as cognitive processes, while the information elements in Socionics are viewed as mental categories that correspond to objective information types. This is a slight difference, but ultimately it mathematically and practically boils down to the same types. If you examine Model A vs. the theories of Lenore Thompson or Beebe you will find that they say essentially the same thing about the role of function order in personalities, as they are built from the same ideas of balance of opposites in the psyche. In my opinion, the idea that you can be one type in one system yet a different type in another system on the basis of their type descriptions tells me that one or both of your typings is wrong, as you are doing it based on descriptions, which can have bias, poor translation, or just poor interpretation of the theory.

Any aspect in which the two interpretations of the fundamental building blocks of type differ should cast aspersions on one or both interpretations. A common example given is introverted sensing, which MBTI seems to describe as relating to memory, details, and organization, whereas Socionics puts it as relating to inner sensations and dynamic connections between physical states. If we are supposing that there is a such thing as "Si" and that we can construct a theory of type using it, it shouldn't be so different between systems. It's possible that the idea is utter nonsense in the first place (pretty likely, but that's the trivial conclusion), or that one or both of these descriptions are incorrect or at the very least incomplete. I like to think that due to their slightly different approaches, with MBTI making no claims on the information that exists in the world but with Socionics including the idea of information metabolism, the two systems are merely looking at projections of the same concepts and patterns that exist in personality but which are more complex than either can fully describe in a singular approach, giving value to both systems without having to think of them as completely distinct.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,072 Posts
@RoSoDude Well I have never claimed that you can be ISFP in one and ENFJ in other BUT in types such as INFP and INFJ there is a lot of ambiguity. As in the definition of the function -Ni- of socionics I have posted. It feels like it is boiled down to very similar things with both Ni of an INFJ and Ne of an INFP. Actually I don't want to start a whole another discussion here but here you can find the same topic being discussed: http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my-personality-type/393490-intj-mbti-lii-intj-socionics.html

Also about the conversion myth, some brief but collected theories:

J/P switch - Wikisocion
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,509 Posts
But this is how they describe the first -function- of an INFp - Ni in the socionics website. It is not a profile description. So apparently, how the function itself is handled or imagined to be is different than how briggs myers did and that changes the whole game.
But they aren't describing Ni, how Ni cognitively works. It is a profile description or it wouldn't say Ni in the INFp, would it? You are drawing faulty conclusions. Type descriptions can very well include shallow function descriptions as a part of the type, e.g. an INTP profile may go into briefly describing the role of Fe in the INTP. However, what makes it a description of type and not a description of function is that it does not actually describe what the function is, how it works, what it does etc. It did so very briefly and in an extremely shallow way. I don't relate to this description of Ni much because it sounds like they are describing some kind of fantasy-prone daydreamer kind of person, and I'm not like that, and I lead with base Ni too. If it was a good and accurate description of Ni, it should capture both ILI and IEI equally, since both lead with base Ni.

In other words, it is not actually describing the function and role of Ni in the psyche, and since it is not doing this, how can you say that they are describing Ni? They're not going into what symbolic imagery means to the Ni type, or how they perceive time etc. That would be describing Ni, how it functionally operates. At best you get something like "a rich inner world", which are just empty buzzwords. I don't have a rich inner world lol, nor am I fantasy-prone. Ni isn't fantasy; it's still a perceiving function.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,072 Posts
INFp in socionics is referred to the functions of INFJ in MBTI. That is why people believe there is a conversion. This is not the type description but the Ni description as the first function of socionics INFp. All the blocks are separately discussed.

" they are describing some kind of fantasy-prone daydreamer kind of person" that is the exact problem ! Which could both apply to MBTI INFP and INFJ, actually -more- INFP Ne if you ask me.

"a rich inner world", which are just empty buzzwords - and this.

But these are exactly what leads to wrong conclusions, exactly. You want to just go with functions but there is the typing part also right? What I am saying is it just does not work. And all you are telling me is that I should go with functions and disregard every typing, quadra, whatever it comes in socionics. It just does not work for me when I read about interactions with other quadras or types when I go with my functions. That is where it fails dramatically.
So we are not really discussing the function and role of Ni in the psyche, but I am saying the categorizing of socionics fails. Exactly, you see how they customized Ni for a type. That is why it does not work. They are boiling types together. Actually notice how it clearly describes an INFP? Like, have you ever met an outspoken rebellious INFJ? And they use keywords like - idealist - for INFp (MBTI INFj) and - empath- for INFj (MBTI INFP). It is the exact opposite. There are so many keywords and key "famous" people they keep referring to, but in opposite.

So following the functions of MBTI INFP I should be INFj in socionics, but I am not and I assure you I am not mistyping myself, I am very comfortable with my typing as I had no doubts, I never had any results to raise doubts.

Socionics INFp however fits me perfectly, my quadra and my inter-type relations are clearly defined. But then I would have to discard all the psyche and that is the problematic part cause it doesn't make sense.

and follow that link please there are a bunch of theories supporting the conversion and a bunch that is counter. There is even an experiment, which sounds problematic also, but suggests that conversion works only for a slighter majority. So you can see that INFPs and INFJs are lumped together in typing part. Some INFPs become INFjs and some become INFps.




But they aren't describing Ni, how Ni cognitively works. It is a profile description or it wouldn't say Ni in the INFp, would it? You are drawing faulty conclusions. Type descriptions can very well include shallow function descriptions as a part of the type, e.g. an INTP profile may go into briefly describing the role of Fe in the INTP. However, what makes it a description of type and not a description of function is that it does not actually describe what the function is, how it works, what it does etc. It did so very briefly and in an extremely shallow way. I don't relate to this description of Ni much because it sounds like they are describing some kind of fantasy-prone daydreamer kind of person, and I'm not like that, and I lead with base Ni too. If it was a good and accurate description of Ni, it should capture both ILI and IEI equally, since both lead with base Ni.

In other words, it is not actually describing the function and role of Ni in the psyche, and since it is not doing this, how can you say that they are describing Ni? They're not going into what symbolic imagery means to the Ni type, or how they perceive time etc. That would be describing Ni, how it functionally operates. At best you get something like "a rich inner world", which are just empty buzzwords. I don't have a rich inner world lol, nor am I fantasy-prone. Ni isn't fantasy; it's still a perceiving function.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
521 Posts
My answer is no it does not; consider these factors:

A. If you compare the descriptions, many are very different (i.e. MBTT descriptions aren't based in the functions.) For example, compare the ENTj to the ENTJ, and you'll see that the ENTJ is described as having an Se equal in power to his Te; how can this be? I believe the ENTJ description is far more fitting for an ESTp, esp. taking into account the stereotype of ENTJs not caring who gets in their way and steamrolling over people to get the job done (which sounds more Se-dom / Fi PoLR to me.) ENFJ shares a similar fate; the descriptions match up closer with an ESFp, rather than an ENFj. This leaves a problem: where do the ENTjs and ENFjs fit in? They identify with other types (often times introverted types), which muddies the water between who's who; since they don't know their actual function order, they go with whatever makes the most sense, which makes it very difficult to understand the functions in people through empirical evidence.

B. MBTT tests for the 1st extroverted function. This is a big problem for introverts because they're naturally going to test for their 1st function, which is introverted; as a result, it's very easy to get one's J/P dichotomy completely incorrect, and that's even assuming the individual is really an introvert (which is another shallow distinction in MBTT that causes a lot of extroverts to type as introverts.) An individual with dominant Ni is going to test as a perceiver because they're literally perceivers and should, if the MBTT has any merit, identify closely to the P dichotomy; this means the Ni-dom will believe he's an INXP. Because of all this muddying between types in MBTT, I theorize that the type descriptions reflected these general groups of similar-minded people rather than reflecting the core functions and order (e.g. you're an INTP if you're an awkward philosophical homebody, not if you have TiNe, which is separate from the INFJ who is a socially dependent philosophical homebody, but nothing like the INFP because all INFPs are sensitive fiction writers who live in fantasy land.) As a result, in any introverted type, you're going to have a minority of that type's actual type, followed closely by the type's opposing J/P dichotomy, followed by extroverts who (through no fault of their own) identify as the MBTT's definition of an introvert.

With all this said, a person seeking their type is going to do the following:

1. Test
2. Read description and agree or disagree; if disagree, test again
3. Upon agreeing on a description, they will interact with people who share their type, such as on this forum

Step 3 is where everything goes downhill; more likely than not, there will be both a strong and shallow connection to the people within that type since they share similar values and lifestyles, but fundamentally they won't consistently connect on a psychological level because so many of them will be using different functions in different orders, esp. noticeable when using functions the individual doesn't value whatsoever, esp. noticeable when trying to find the difference between Ji and Pi in people and failing to see a difference since so much of the testable population is inconsistent in their cognitive styles.

That's fine for the individual who doesn't take a peek at the underbelly of the system; they figure they're just fully unique from others of that same type and keep the type they liked and don't think too much on it. It's when they start to dig deeper into the theory that they start to realize that everything they thought they knew about themselves was for someone else, and once they do start understanding their true function order, they realize the type description for them just doesn't fit right. We see this all the time: "unknown personality". The only way it works out is if the individual picks the closest type and doesn't think about it too much, which is an utter shame as it defeats the purpose of involving oneself in this matter in the first place, thereby wasting time and stopping these theories from moving anywhere beyond a hobbyist level since "I've been learning about this stuff for months and I still don't know who I really am" is not a tempting review; this is the barrier between theory and market value, why few businessmen want to risk doing something productive with this system and why the ones who have don't go far.

Anyway, to answer your question: if you're an extrovert (aside from the ENXj exceptions), it probably works out much better for you and the two systems will correlate somewhat well. If you're an introvert, abandon all hope; the MBTT has no introverted type which will match the description to the functions faithfully. If you still want to use it, go by the type description alone (since this is what other people will expect out of you), and use socionics instead for functional self-assessment; don't bother matching up the functions between both systems, it will just give you a headache. It's not because the functions are radically different from one another (there are differences but they're not enough to throw the types completely off base), it's just MBTT getting old and its initial problems becoming worse as time goes on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,509 Posts
INFp in socionics is referred to the functions of INFJ in MBTI. That is why people believe there is a conversion. This is not the type description but the Ni description as the first function of socionics INFp. All the blocks are separately discussed.
It is a type description of the INFp type, because it does not really delve much into the actual functional properties of the type. It's describing behavior and outwards manifestation of how the type may look like, which is a type description.

" they are describing some kind of fantasy-prone daydreamer kind of person" that is the exact problem ! Which could both apply to MBTI INFP and INFJ, actually -more- INFP Ne if you ask me.
Except that has nothing to do with Fi and Ne as cognitive functions.

"a rich inner world", which are just empty buzzwords - and this.
Again, has nothing to do with type.

But these are exactly what leads to wrong conclusions, exactly. You want to just go with functions but there is the typing part also right? What I am saying is it just does not work. And all you are telling me is that I should go with functions and disregard every typing, quadra, whatever it comes in socionics. It just does not work for me when I read about interactions with other quadras or types when I go with my functions. That is where it fails dramatically.
You are being very erroneous in your comparison, because you cannot on the one hand compare type descriptions and then say but this description sounds like an INFP and this description here sounds exactly the same except it's an INFp so therefore they must be different types while at the same time declaring that the INFp description is focused on Ni and Fe but the INFP description does not. If you are going to compare types, you need to compare it at the same structural level, in this case the cognitive makeup of how they are defined. So what you should really be looking at is does an INFP whose type is made up of Fi and Ne, structurally speaking, actually correlate to the INFp whose functional makeup is Ni and Fe? And the answer to this question is in my opinion a resounding no, because if you actually study what Fi really is, even when you pair it with Ne/intuition, it becomes very clear that Fi is very different from Ni. What has Fi got anything to do with being dreamy? Not much, to be honest. When you focus on behavioral traits and outwards manifestations of a type, you lose sight of its actual functional dimension because if you start extrapolating on the idea on that all people who experience themselves as dreamy etc. must be INFPs and INFps, you open up to the room of severe mistyping since dreamy is not a quality that is explicit or unique to the INFp or INFP. It's faulty type logic.

So we are not really discussing the function and role of Ni in the psyche, but I am saying the categorizing of socionics fails. Exactly, you see how they customized Ni for a type.
I see stereotyping, not customization.

That is why it does not work. They are boiling types together. Actually notice how it clearly describes an INFP?
No, I don't. I don't see them describing Fi and Ne here.

Like, have you ever met an outspoken rebellious INFJ?
I don't see how rebelliousness and outspokenness got anything to do with INFJ, but if we are going by type logic, then yes, an INFJ, who values Ni and Se, is going to be more outspoken, rebellious and aggressive than an INFP because Se is much more physically forceful in the present moment than Si is.

And they use keywords like - idealist - for INFp (MBTI INFj) and - empath- for INFj (MBTI INFP). It is the exact opposite. There are so many keywords and key "famous" people they keep referring to, but in opposite.
Why go off keywords instead of actually going off, you know, the actual structural dimension of what makes the type?

So following the functions of MBTI INFP I should be INFj in socionics, but I am not and I assure you I am not mistyping myself, I am very comfortable with my typing as I had no doubts, I never had any results to raise doubts.
I think you are mistyped lol, because you are ignoring the fact that an INFP in the MBTI is Fi and Ne, and where in your cognition have you expressed that you identify with Fi and Ne or is cognitively oriented towards Fi and Ne? In fact, I wonder if you are an IEI too, because your Ti is so bad.

Socionics INFp however fits me perfectly, my quadra and my inter-type relations are clearly defined. But then I would have to discard all the psyche and that is the problematic part cause it doesn't make sense.
What things don't make sense?

and follow that link please there are a bunch of theories supporting the conversion and a bunch that is counter. There is even an experiment, which sounds problematic also, but suggests that conversion works only for a slighter majority. So you can see that INFPs and INFJs are lumped together in typing part. Some INFPs become INFjs and some become INFps.
Not really, no. I don't buy into this type logic. You cannot work with functions in one system and ignoring the functions in another and then go on and declare that base on that logic, of course the types are different, when you aren't even making the comparison fair in the first place.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,072 Posts
@Entropic

Since you have a tendency to focus on everything else than the point I am making here and somehow feeling the need to play the guessing game of my personality, I will just copy what you have written yourself

"When you focus on behavioral traits and outwards manifestations of a type, you lose sight of its actual functional dimension because if you start extrapolating on the idea on that all people who experience themselves as dreamy etc. must be INFPs and INFps, you open up to the room of severe mistyping since dreamy is not a quality that is explicit or unique to the INFp or INFP. It's faulty type logic."

This is WHY the socionics typing fails. You seem to be stuck at the psyche and functions level. I don't question that I use Fi and Ne. I question where Socionics is trying to put me under as a type and why it fails.

"I don't buy into this type logic. You cannot work with functions in one system and ignoring the functions in another" This is how I feel Socionics is doing.

I really don't understand why you are closed to discussing this part and take the topic back to functions. Notice my emphasis on -typing-
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,072 Posts
well you might go ahead and say who needs typing? Well, personally I don't. I know what functions I use but when I try to make sense of inter-type and inter-quadra relations, again, it fails because of that typing of socionics and the follow up.

And I assure you the only reason I have checked in this in the first place is how confident I am with -Fi-

anyhow, using your functions approach fails dramatically again in observations and behaviors as INFJs are far less outspoken than the average INFP. Observations need to meet theories and only then they make sense if you want to not only understand yourself but your interaction with others.

I don't need any typing or personality index to understand myself at all, but at most to reason and mostly to observe others and find my place among the intertype relationships.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,509 Posts
@Entropic

Since you have a tendency to focus on everything else than the point I am making here and somehow feeling the need to play the guessing game of my personality, I will just copy what you have written yourself
Perhaps then, you aren't being overly clear. It's another reason why I fail to see kindred with you, though.

"When you focus on behavioral traits and outwards manifestations of a type, you lose sight of its actual functional dimension because if you start extrapolating on the idea on that all people who experience themselves as dreamy etc. must be INFPs and INFps, you open up to the room of severe mistyping since dreamy is not a quality that is explicit or unique to the INFp or INFP. It's faulty type logic."

This is WHY the socionics typing fails. You seem to be stuck at the psyche and functions level. I don't question that I use Fi and Ne. I question where Socionics is trying to put me under as a type and why it fails.
What? This doesn't even make any sense.

"I don't buy into this type logic. You cannot work with functions in one system and ignoring the functions in another" This is how I feel Socionics is doing.

I really don't understand why you are closed to discussing this part and take the topic back to functions. Notice my emphasis on -typing-
Because when you type people you need to look at their functional makeup since that is what defines the type.

well you might go ahead and say who needs typing? Well, personally I don't. I know what functions I use but when I try to make sense of inter-type and inter-quadra relations, again, it fails because of that typing of socionics and the follow up.

And I assure you the only reason I have checked in this in the first place is how confident I am with -Fi-

anyhow, using your functions approach fails dramatically again in observations and behaviors as INFJs are far less outspoken than the average INFP. Observations need to meet theories and only then they make sense if you want to not only understand yourself but your interaction with others.

I don't need any typing or personality index to understand myself at all, but at most to reason and mostly to observe others and find my place among the intertype relationships.
Except you don't seem to evaluate situations based on Fi.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
951 Posts
The more I study socionics the more I tend to believe that the MBTI descriptions are incomplete (from a socionics perspective, I'm not saying there's no value in MBTI), and this vagueness could lead to overlap.

It's already been posted but I seriously recommend reading the J/P switch - Wikisocion article as it shows that it's far from clear-cut and still very much disputed. My suggestion is to choose a system and understand your type, and then hypothesise on how it might relate to the other system, but there's no right answer.
 
1 - 20 of 158 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top